And we need to remember that border security is a SECURITY issue. If we’re so concerned about keeping terrorists out of our country, then it makes sense to be CERTAIN that they can’t come in an open back door. Obviously it doesn’t keep them from entering the country legally, but it is only common sense that you’d be wise to reinforce security on all possible means of entrance.

I’m an LDS Ron Paul supporter. And I just wanted to encourage those who aren’t yet Ron Paul supporters to look at the bigger picture. People get caught up in the details. Maybe you disagree with Ron Paul about border security, maybe you disagree with him about the war in Iraq, or maybe there is some other issue you disagree about. But the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is absolutely devoted and dedicated to what he HIMSELF calls our “divinely inspired constitution.” Just google “Ron Paul statement of faith” and you can read it yourself.

It’s easy to get hung up on one issue and attack a candidate because of that one issue. Put aside your pet issues for a moment and think of the Constitution. The Constitution is our divinely inspired and unbiased standard of proper government. I encourage you to take each candidate as a whole package and see which package is most consistently in-line with the Constitution and the ideals of the Founders. If you do, you’ll see what I see… that Ron Paul wins by far.

What Ms. Marsden fails to realize in her narrow definition of the “Just War Theory” is that Moroni was fighting a war against those who were attacking his people. War is legitimately condoned in self defense, as David O. McKay explained:

We see that war is incompatible with Christ’s teachings. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of peace. War is its antithesis and produces hate. It is vain to attempt to reconcile war with true Christianity. There are, however, two conditions which may justify a truly Christian man to enter, mind you, I say enter, not begin, a war: (1) an attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency, and (2) loyalty to his country. Possibly there is a third, viz., defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong ruthless one.

The desire of some to apply scriptural war precedent in a twisted fashion to condone the actions of the current administration seems weak and desperate.

I do agree with Ms. Marsden that the prophet should be the one to speak of the true interpretation. After declaring that the Book of Mormon was “as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems,” our current prophet said:

The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

Seems like a good synopsis of events in our day.

Ms. Marsden then goes on to opine that I was too busy attacking another candidate to promote my own. What Ms. Marsden did not know (and what was made more difficult to understand since the paper changed the title of my letter) is that the point of my letter was to point out that Governor Romney’s political stance is not what represents the values (or what should be the values) of Latter-day Saints. The mention of Ron Paul near the conclusion of my letter was only a secondary element.

Indeed, the letter could have made the same point if there were no mention of Rep. Paul. However, it is unwise in my opinion to criticize without offering a solution. It would be weak to simply say that Romney wasn’t a good representative of LDS views without offering an alternative that the readers could look into.

Wow, putting words in my mouth without even putting words in my mouth. Nice job! ;)

The quote you share from Nibley is an excellent one that shows the danger of reading into the scriptures an interpretation that suits our own political agenda. But the “agenda” or “platform” of Constitutionally guaranteed liberty is in perfect harmony with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, there are a plethora of GA quotes supporting the notion that the fight for liberty against tyranny is the same fight that has been going on since the War in Heaven.

And so, we have been counseled, both in scripture by the Lord and in conferences by the brethren to uphold and defend the Constitution. I promote principles, not partisan platforms. I promote truth as it is found in the words of our founding fathers and modern day prophets, not a jaded political viewpoint that relies on a single verse, broadly interpreted to create its justification.

The issue of liberty, of agency, of self sufficiency is fully supported by the gospel and transcends trivial “human politics”. Just as a statesman is superior to the politician, so are eternal principles superior to human politicking.

…stating that you should never do exactly what you have done with the example of President Benson.

Um, what example of President Benson?

In other words, truly evil things have happened again and again when people convince themselves that their political ideas are more than political ideas. Yeah, yeah, Benson was conservative, Faust was appointed to committees on civil rights, Brigham Young tried establishing the United Order, what is your point?

Here is mine, put eloquently again by Nibley.
“How could anything as trivial as human politics subvert our minds from the gospel? The danger lies in the fact that nothing is easier than to identify one’s own political, economic, dietary, cosmological, aesthetic, etc., ideas with the gospel, both to please one’s own vanity and to flatten the opposition. Therefore, our prophet was truly inspired when he told the priesthood at the last General Conference to avoid “even the implication” associating the Church with any political party, policy, or name.”

If so, your definition of prosperity, as it is linked to standard of living, is severely warped.

I define prosperity as being able to purchase goods and services for a low price. How is that warped?

Restricting people from coming to the United States restricts the labor market. Supply doesn’t meet demand; that’s why it’s inefficient.

The law is flawed because it restricts people from coming to the United States. It should be changed to allow anyone come here who wants to.

Laws that enforce property rights can foster a free market. Laws that restrict supply and demand harm a free market.

I don’t think it’s a human right to usurp property from others. I think there are immoral crimes. But I think it’s very much a human right for human beings to have the freedom to emigrate to a country.

Do you really think that our nation would prosper with a hundred million illegal immigrants working here for next to nothing?

Yes. You see, I understand economics.

A free market is not free without the rule of law. Destroying a nation’s sovereignty and subverting established law is not a free market.

A job should go to whoever will do it for the lowest wage. It increases efficiency.

Subsidizing those who break the law, and hence encouraging more of it, is the opposite of efficiency. What, pray tell, is the opposite of efficiency? One antonym would be chaos. A free market should be based on law and order, not on chaos and rogue individuals breaking established laws.

The laws prohibiting human beings from coming to the United States are flawed.

No doubt. That is why Rep. Paul favors reforming immigration law. But that is not something we can adequately do when our borders are porous and we’re looking the other way while millions break our laws.

Imagine how much more expensive everything would be if…

Imagine how much more inexpensive everything would be if … all of this wasn’t true.

That’s what I call prosperity.

Go read Atlas Shrugged.

Why won’t you let other humans come here if they want to?

Why won’t you let me steal your money? Why won’t you let me kick you out of your house and live there instead? Why won’t you let me have your job? After all, these are “human rights issues”, are they not?

You won’t let me, and we shouldn’t let illegal immigrants, because they are breaking the law, just as I would be breaking the law by taking what is yours, by injuring another, or whatever else goes against the established and Constitutional laws of this nation.

Do you really think that our nation would prosper with a hundred million illegal immigrants working here for next to nothing? If so, your definition of prosperity, as it is linked to standard of living, is severely warped.

No, this topic is relevant because is shows how Ron Paul doesn’t have a clue.

A free labor market allows supply to meet demand. A job should go to whoever will do it for the lowest wage. It increases efficiency.

The laws prohibiting human beings from coming to the United States are flawed. There should be no limit to the number of people who want to come into this country.

Mexicans do drive down wages. You betray yourself by saying that they “supposedly” lower wages. Imagine how much more expensive everything would be if it was done by Americans who demanded $15 an hour? How much would a hamburger cost? How many small businesses would fold? How much would it cost to have bathroooms cleaned?

I want lots and lots of illegal immigrants. Let’s open the borders and let them in. I’m glad that I only have to pony up $6 for a fast food lunch (instead of $12). That’s what I call prosperity.

And then it’s a human rights issue. Why won’t you let other humans come here if they want to?

News flash of the day:

Illegal immigration is…

…

ILLEGAL!

And besides, it is in no way good for our economy. Those supposedly driving down our wages are sucking away our social security, raising hospital fees, usurping educational resources, and are being completely subsidized by the government.

If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Since we’re heavily subsidizing illegal (yes, illegal) immigrants, we’re only going to get more of them. I don’t care what phantom (and phony) economic benefits they may bring with them: they are illegal!

Another topic for another day… but this is a threadjack.

Why would you deny human beings the right to come here and work?

No, that’s called true national security. Closed borders indicates a refusal to allow immigration, imports/exports, or multilateral diplomacy. Ron Paul is in favor of open borders to the extent that America’s presence should be felt and spread by example throughout the world.

However, leaving America’s borders to be entirely porous encourages further illegal immigration which drains our national resources, spits in the face of the rule of law, and shows the hypocrisy of politicians promising to secure our borders but doing nothing about it — and often doing the opposite, as is evidenced by the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Paul voted “yes” on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico.

That’s called a closed border.

Rep. Paul doesn’t have a closed-border idea. It’s evident that you didn’t study his platform.